LFO Everything used non-commercial licensed m4l patch code

emajcher · Post by **emajcher** » Fri Jan 21, 2011 5:42 am

LFO everything steals 100% of the code for the bpatcher module for persisting track/device/parameters with a live set lifted from my Midi LFO which I posted on maxforlive.com under a non-commercial license @ http://www.maxforlive.com/library/device.php?id=354 way back in July.

The creative commons license explicitly states assigned to the patch on maxforlive.com states:

"This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work non-commercially, and although their new works must also acknowledge you and be non-commercial, they don’t have to license their derivative works on the same terms."

The bpatcher is identical, down to the module positions, font I use and the name of every single parameter based on the naming conventions I use when I develop M4L patches. Asking for permission would have been the proper approach before you renamed the object and started to sell it with your patch; designing a LFO that controls Live was academic (which can be seen from the number of LFO's on maxforlive.com, including mine), the hard part was persisting the parameters with the live set in a reliable fashion.

It may seem like I am being petty but I have enjoyed all of the free patches I have downloaded from maxforlive.com and I am not a big fan of selling m4l patches, especially where you are lifting code specifically from a plugin that is marked as non-commericial only.

seattletruth · Post by **seattletruth** » Fri Jan 21, 2011 9:28 am

Lucy! Someone's got some 'splaining to do.

I would send them a cease and desist order.

simpli.cissimus · Post by **simpli.cissimus** » Fri Jan 21, 2011 6:17 pm

Why don't you make your own LFO Everything for Live,
available for all and upload it here ???

If everyone can have it for free,
nobody will pay for the commercial one.

emajcher · Post by **emajcher** » Fri Jan 21, 2011 6:29 pm

Mine has been available for free since july

http://www.maxforlive.com/library/device.php?id=354

julienb · Post by **julienb** » Fri Jan 21, 2011 7:09 pm

exhausting...

julienb · Post by **julienb** » Fri Jan 21, 2011 7:21 pm

Please refund my money, I already paid for some of the code when I wrote it this summer.

If you would have just asked I would have let you use it, I am not looking to make money off of max patches and I would have been honored to assist you by you using my module to further along your new career as a max developer. I won't comment in the forums any longer, I am exhausted by this, just issue the refund.

I recommend not lifting code from the community without prior permission in the future when creating a commercial patch.

Edward

I received an email from HIM.
I decided to refund him for ONLY 2 reasons:
1/ because he was one of my user because he bought the device and I don't like to have people unsatistified with my products, lessons, workshops etc.
It is important for me to make people happy.
2/ I want to end this story

Unfortunately, HE is unpeaceful.
Fortunately, I am.

So please, stop your words about that as soon as I would have refund your money.
I DIDN'T steal anything. so I CANNOT refund you for the reason you quoted.

I hope you'll remove the other post about that.

all the best & peace for all of you, even for YOU.

stringtapper · Post by **stringtapper** » Fri Jan 21, 2011 7:28 pm

julienb wrote:exhausting...

Julien, you need to explain this. I've looked at the code and it's way too similar for you to claim you didn't use it. Device LFO has been on my hard drive for months while I just bought your device a few days ago and now I'm staring at two patches of the same code.

I realize English isn't your first language, but your explanation in the other thread simply is not valid. To defend yourself by claiming that "there are no unique ideas" doesn't work. There is such thing as intellectual property and we have license schemes to protect people's right to it. I personally don't care that you're making money from a device (hell, you made some of mine from it), but to use someone else's code and then sell it as your own is wrong. You have been very defensive and that is your right, but so far your arguments in favor of your actions just don't work.

You owe it to the people who bought your device and to this community to explain yourself.

Gregory Taylor · Post by **Gregory Taylor** » Fri Jan 21, 2011 7:44 pm

When plagiarism does occur in academic settings (where it's taken very seriously, indeed), my wife usually describes them by the degree of effort put into disguising the plagiarized source. One physics professor friend of ours spotted a great example of "borrowing" that referenced his undergraduate student's "...work that led to my Nobel Prize."

emajcher · Post by **emajcher** » Fri Jan 21, 2011 7:48 pm

Gregory Taylor wrote:When plagiarism does occur in academic settings (where it's taken very seriously, indeed), my wife usually describes them by the degree of effort put into disguising the plagiarized source. One physics professor friend of ours spotted a great example of "borrowing" that referenced his undergraduate student's "...work that led to my Nobel Prize."

It was a cut and paste, remove my name, not a case of "influenced by".

stringtapper · Post by **stringtapper** » Fri Jan 21, 2011 7:56 pm

Gregory Taylor wrote:When plagiarism does occur in academic settings (where it's taken very seriously, indeed), my wife usually describes them by the degree of effort put into disguising the plagiarized source. One physics professor friend of ours spotted a great example of "borrowing" that referenced his undergraduate student's "...work that led to my Nobel Prize."

This is why I enjoy teaching aural skills. It's hard to cheat on a sight singing examination.

Gregory Taylor · Post by **Gregory Taylor** » Fri Jan 21, 2011 9:34 pm

As a way of shredding one's own credibility in public view, failing a sight-singing exam would be right up there.

Seppe · Post by **Seppe** » Fri Jan 21, 2011 9:58 pm

stringtapper wrote:
Julien, you need to explain this. I've looked at the code and it's way too similar for you to claim you didn't use it. Device LFO has been on my hard drive for months while I just bought your device a few days ago and now I'm staring at two patches of the same code.

I realize English isn't your first language, but your explanation in the other thread simply is not valid. To defend yourself by claiming that "there are no unique ideas" doesn't work. There is such thing as intellectual property and we have license schemes to protect people's right to it. I personally don't care that you're making money from a device (hell, you made some of mine from it), but to use someone else's code and then sell it as your own is wrong. You have been very defensive and that is your right, but so far your arguments in favor of your actions just don't work.

You owe it to the people who bought your device and to this community to explain yourself.

Exactly my thoughts

julienb · Post by **julienb** » Sat Jan 22, 2011 2:15 pm

(still) exhausting.
a couple of person, probably bored in their life, contribute to blacklist me here.
I just can add my little contribution here: it isn't a war for me.
I suggest to be more peace, zen and quiet.
It is better for minds, body and art too.

emajcher has made his LFO. right.
he didn't create the LFO concept.
his LFO is nice, mine too (a bit better but)

stringtapper, you're wrong.
but I even still love you

so end of story?
attack? war from you?
I'm peaceful, dudes.
I won't fight.
really.

even, I begin to laugh of all of that.
I didn't think that yesterday because, really, I was a bit sad that several people could think about I needed HIS patch to make mine (indeed, giving max courses, m4l etc since months, appreciated by communities too etc... it was a bit agressive for me to feel like the man who knows nothing and who is a thief..)
but today was finally another day.
so, please... let's have fun.

really.

Surreal · Post by **Surreal** » Sat Jan 22, 2011 2:36 pm

message boards to not convey inflection well, so i will explicitly say that none of my statement is from a point of bad feelings. I have no real stake in this other than being someone who makes patches and would appreciate a bit of recognition if my work was used.

Julien, I think the question people have is "did you use that subpatch?" That is the heart of the issue and I don't think you have really ever confirmed or denied the claim.

toscanini · Post by **toscanini** » Sat Jan 22, 2011 3:05 pm

stringtapper wrote:Julien, you need to explain this. I've looked at the code and it's way too similar for you to claim you didn't use it. Device LFO has been on my hard drive for months while I just bought your device a few days ago and now I'm staring at two patches of the same code.

I realize English isn't your first language, but your explanation in the other thread simply is not valid. To defend yourself by claiming that "there are no unique ideas" doesn't work. There is such thing as intellectual property and we have license schemes to protect people's right to it. I personally don't care that you're making money from a device (hell, you made some of mine from it), but to use someone else's code and then sell it as your own is wrong. You have been very defensive and that is your right, but so far your arguments in favor of your actions just don't work.

You owe it to the people who bought your device and to this community to explain yourself.

julienb wrote:stringtapper, you're wrong.
but I even still love you

huh? how arrogant is that?

Yes, +1 who excepts an answer to "did you use that subpatch?" Nooo, stop the zen voodoo and the hypnotizing eyes!

LFO Everything used non-commercial licensed m4l patch code

LFO Everything used non-commercial licensed m4l patch code

Re: LFO Everything used non-commercial licensed m4l patch code

Re: LFO Everything used non-commercial licensed m4l patch code

Re: LFO Everything used non-commercial licensed m4l patch code

Re: LFO Everything used non-commercial licensed m4l patch code

Re: LFO Everything used non-commercial licensed m4l patch code

Re: LFO Everything used non-commercial licensed m4l patch code

Re: LFO Everything used non-commercial licensed m4l patch code

Re: LFO Everything used non-commercial licensed m4l patch code

Re: LFO Everything used non-commercial licensed m4l patch code

Re: LFO Everything used non-commercial licensed m4l patch code

Re: LFO Everything used non-commercial licensed m4l patch code

Re: LFO Everything used non-commercial licensed m4l patch code

Re: LFO Everything used non-commercial licensed m4l patch code

Re: LFO Everything used non-commercial licensed m4l patch code